Hooray for Optionality!!

[keevsnick]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

So to do that Bridges deal Charlotte needed to take on money for 27-28 as both Allen and O'Neale run an extra season. In other words the Celtics would have STILL ended up with 55 million committed to three players Reid, O'Neale and Allen in 27-28 along with an additional 55 million in Reid for 28-30. So actually the contracts they were getting back in net would have saved them little if anything and they likely get worse overall picks.

So that deal nets the Celtics no extra financial flexibility, no pick as good as the 2028 LAC pick, no player as good as PG, and takes up more roster spots.

[byennie]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

The Charlotte-Phoenix deal was Bridges + 1st round pick and 2nd round pick for Allen, O?Neale, and a more distant 1st round pick.  Somehow on the board the picks sent with Bridges have been forgotten.  Charlotte sent out more in draft compensation than they received back in that deal.

I would rather have a 2033 first rounder from Phoenix than a 2029 first rounder from Charlotte.

And that is a choice that may or may not prove to be correct, but it does mean that Bridges was not worth a pick on his own, which is at least the implication some have given.  I am not sure if that was the argument you were making.

We have heard the offer was Bridges, Reid, and picks.  Was it multiple 1st round picks?  Was it the same picks they wound up trading to Phoenix?  Who knows.  It was presumably not four 1st rounders since the Celtics would have certainly accepted that.  I can come up with pick combinations that would have made me prefer Reid, Allen, and the husk of Royce Oneale to the trade that was made, and I can come up with combinations that make me prefer our current deal.  I am not happy with any of them, to be honest, and I am mostly just shocked that Brown could not get more.  Like, Brandon Miller plus four picks sounded reasonable to me, but apparently it was so far from the market as to scare some teams off.

Royce O'Neale is a husk now?  He played 78 minutes for a playoff team,, outscoring, out-shooting, out-rebounding and out-passing Hauser.

If you didn't like the deal, why are you defending it tooth and nail, like you have a personal stake in defending Brent Stevens' honor?

I'm no fan of how this played out with George by any means, but you seem to be going to the extreme in the other direction. Are you suggesting that if we ended up with Naz Reid, Grayson Allen, Royce O'Neale ($50M+ combined and more total commitments than Paul George) a 1st rounder, and/or some sort of 1st round gamble 6 years in the future, that would have been acceptable? I don't have anything against O'Neale either, but I can't see any critics of the George deal liking that any better in an alternate universe where it happened. Or are we assuming we somehow could have gotten an extra haul of 1st rounders despite only rumors to the contrary?

This whole situation sucks, and one can definitely make the argument that a lot of PR spin is happening, but what if the message is actual accurate: teams DO NOT want to pay $70M/year for Jaylen Brown in 2032, so why would they pay for the privilege? Rumors are rumors, but also we're talking about Naz Reid, Miles Bridges, Royce O'Neale, Grayson Allen, picks in 2033 as evidence there was something better out there? On top of us clearly being beat out by Miami for Giannis?

I get it, ragging on Brown over analytics and trading him away after winning a championship, and not getting was is perceived as a good return... it feels like a slap in the face to some. But man, if that's MY team, as a GM or an owner, I wouldn't be signing him to that extension. Let the Phoenix Suns of the league pay $70M for Devin Booker. We won one title with Tatum and Brown in 10 years, in their absolute primes, at the exact time we had the money to employ Jrue Holiday AND Porzingis AND White AND Al Horford. I don't think it's irrational to think that older versions of Tatum and Brown making too much money to ever have an excellent supporting cast, could be a very bad idea. And if analytics strongly support that notion in addition...

[Kernewek]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

So to do that Bridges deal Charlotte needed to take on money for 27-28 as both Allen and O'Neale run an extra season. In other words the Celtics would have STILL ended up with 55 million committed to three players Reid, O'Neale and Allen in 27-28 along with an additional 55 million in Reid for 28-30. So actually the contracts they were getting back in net would have saved them little if anything and they likely get worse overall picks.

So that deal nets the Celtics no extra financial flexibility, no pick as good as the 2028 LAC pick, no player as good as PG, and takes up more roster spots.

Let's not talk too much sense in a grievance thread.

[Roy H.]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

So to do that Bridges deal Charlotte needed to take on money for 27-28 as both Allen and O'Neale run an extra season. In other words the Celtics would have STILL ended up with 55 million committed to three players Reid, O'Neale and Allen in 27-28 along with an additional 55 million in Reid for 28-30. So actually the contracts they were getting back in net would have saved them little if anything and they likely get worse overall picks.

So that deal nets the Celtics no extra financial flexibility, no pick as good as the 2028 LAC pick, no player as good as PG, and takes up more roster spots.

Let's not talk too much sense in a grievance thread.

The cognitive dissonance is high with you lately.

Let's pretend that age doesn't matter, nor does injury history.  Let's pretend that three smaller contracts are as hard to move as one $60 million one.

That's not "sense", that's idiocy.

[Roy H.]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

The Charlotte-Phoenix deal was Bridges + 1st round pick and 2nd round pick for Allen, O?Neale, and a more distant 1st round pick.  Somehow on the board the picks sent with Bridges have been forgotten.  Charlotte sent out more in draft compensation than they received back in that deal.

I would rather have a 2033 first rounder from Phoenix than a 2029 first rounder from Charlotte.

And that is a choice that may or may not prove to be correct, but it does mean that Bridges was not worth a pick on his own, which is at least the implication some have given.  I am not sure if that was the argument you were making.

We have heard the offer was Bridges, Reid, and picks.  Was it multiple 1st round picks?  Was it the same picks they wound up trading to Phoenix?  Who knows.  It was presumably not four 1st rounders since the Celtics would have certainly accepted that.  I can come up with pick combinations that would have made me prefer Reid, Allen, and the husk of Royce Oneale to the trade that was made, and I can come up with combinations that make me prefer our current deal.  I am not happy with any of them, to be honest, and I am mostly just shocked that Brown could not get more.  Like, Brandon Miller plus four picks sounded reasonable to me, but apparently it was so far from the market as to scare some teams off.

Royce O'Neale is a husk now?  He played 78 minutes for a playoff team,, outscoring, out-shooting, out-rebounding and out-passing Hauser.

If you didn't like the deal, why are you defending it tooth and nail, like you have a personal stake in defending Brent Stevens' honor?

I'm no fan of how this played out with George by any means, but you seem to be going to the extreme in the other direction. Are you suggesting that if we ended up with Naz Reid, Grayson Allen, Royce O'Neale ($50M+ combined and more total commitments than Paul George) a 1st rounder, and/or some sort of 1st round gamble 6 years in the future, that would have been acceptable? I don't have anything against O'Neale either, but I can't see any critics of the George deal liking that any better in an alternate universe where it happened. Or are we assuming we somehow could have gotten an extra haul of 1st rounders despite only rumors to the contrary?

This whole situation sucks, and one can definitely make the argument that a lot of PR spin is happening, but what if the message is actual accurate: teams DO NOT want to pay $70M/year for Jaylen Brown in 2032, so why would they pay for the privilege? Rumors are rumors, but also we're talking about Naz Reid, Miles Bridges, Royce O'Neale, Grayson Allen, picks in 2033 as evidence there was something better out there? On top of us clearly being beat out by Miami for Giannis?

I get it, ragging on Brown over analytics and trading him away after winning a championship, and not getting was is perceived as a good return... it feels like a slap in the face to some. But man, if that's MY team, as a GM or an owner, I wouldn't be signing him to that extension. Let the Phoenix Suns of the league pay $70M for Devin Booker. We won one title with Tatum and Brown in 10 years, in their absolute primes, at the exact time we had the money to employ Jrue Holiday AND Porzingis AND White AND Al Horford. I don't think it's irrational to think that older versions of Tatum and Brown making too much money to ever have an excellent supporting cast, could be a very bad idea. And if analytics strongly support that notion in addition...

Multiple 1sts, but yes, that's easily a better deal.  I would have kept JB, and would have simply said "no" to an extension, but if Brad was going to rush into a trade he should have taken something less awful than 36 year old, injured and mentally ill Paul George.

[Kernewek]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

So to do that Bridges deal Charlotte needed to take on money for 27-28 as both Allen and O'Neale run an extra season. In other words the Celtics would have STILL ended up with 55 million committed to three players Reid, O'Neale and Allen in 27-28 along with an additional 55 million in Reid for 28-30. So actually the contracts they were getting back in net would have saved them little if anything and they likely get worse overall picks.

So that deal nets the Celtics no extra financial flexibility, no pick as good as the 2028 LAC pick, no player as good as PG, and takes up more roster spots.

Let's not talk too much sense in a grievance thread.

The cognitive dissonance is high with you lately.

Let's pretend that age doesn't matter, nor does injury history.  Let's pretend that three smaller contracts are as hard to move as one $60 million one.

That's not "sense", that's idiocy.

Eh, I would suggest you're taking a hypothetical deal as a measuring stick in comparison to the deal we actually got (which, as keevs has pointed out, isn't as rosy as you paint it) but additionally you're ignoring the very real likelihood that this year's team will be better in the regular season than last year's squad.

Beyond that, as you and most other posters here have highlighted, our postseason performance with both Jays & Coach JM was routinely underwhelming. Since Mazz is still head coach, it would mean we are unlikely to see a particularly good playoff run from the previous squad, no? After all, as many posters have said over the last couple of years, the 'only reason' we won in 2024 was due to the stacked supporting cast and a 'historically easy' road to the championship.

So, glass half full: we're looking an equal-or-better regular season and playoffs compared to last year and more flexibility moving forward.

Glass half empty: we don't see Paul George because he's injured, we have a slightly worse regular season than last year (and a middling playoff performance) and the team has more flexibility moving forward.

Now, big caveat - I don't think it's a realistic option to keep JB and say no to an extension. You don't agree, which is where a big part of our differing evaluations comes from, I suspect, but I think it has the potential to have a significant impact on the locker room, the on-court product, and the moves the team is able to make moving forward.

I also don't think it makes much sense to harp on Paul George for using ketamine when you've enthusiastically defended the behaviour of other ketamine users like Elon Musk in the past, but it's not really a needle-mover, for me one way or the other.

[byennie]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

The Charlotte-Phoenix deal was Bridges + 1st round pick and 2nd round pick for Allen, O?Neale, and a more distant 1st round pick.  Somehow on the board the picks sent with Bridges have been forgotten.  Charlotte sent out more in draft compensation than they received back in that deal.

I would rather have a 2033 first rounder from Phoenix than a 2029 first rounder from Charlotte.

And that is a choice that may or may not prove to be correct, but it does mean that Bridges was not worth a pick on his own, which is at least the implication some have given.  I am not sure if that was the argument you were making.

We have heard the offer was Bridges, Reid, and picks.  Was it multiple 1st round picks?  Was it the same picks they wound up trading to Phoenix?  Who knows.  It was presumably not four 1st rounders since the Celtics would have certainly accepted that.  I can come up with pick combinations that would have made me prefer Reid, Allen, and the husk of Royce Oneale to the trade that was made, and I can come up with combinations that make me prefer our current deal.  I am not happy with any of them, to be honest, and I am mostly just shocked that Brown could not get more.  Like, Brandon Miller plus four picks sounded reasonable to me, but apparently it was so far from the market as to scare some teams off.

Royce O'Neale is a husk now?  He played 78 minutes for a playoff team,, outscoring, out-shooting, out-rebounding and out-passing Hauser.

If you didn't like the deal, why are you defending it tooth and nail, like you have a personal stake in defending Brent Stevens' honor?

I'm no fan of how this played out with George by any means, but you seem to be going to the extreme in the other direction. Are you suggesting that if we ended up with Naz Reid, Grayson Allen, Royce O'Neale ($50M+ combined and more total commitments than Paul George) a 1st rounder, and/or some sort of 1st round gamble 6 years in the future, that would have been acceptable? I don't have anything against O'Neale either, but I can't see any critics of the George deal liking that any better in an alternate universe where it happened. Or are we assuming we somehow could have gotten an extra haul of 1st rounders despite only rumors to the contrary?

This whole situation sucks, and one can definitely make the argument that a lot of PR spin is happening, but what if the message is actual accurate: teams DO NOT want to pay $70M/year for Jaylen Brown in 2032, so why would they pay for the privilege? Rumors are rumors, but also we're talking about Naz Reid, Miles Bridges, Royce O'Neale, Grayson Allen, picks in 2033 as evidence there was something better out there? On top of us clearly being beat out by Miami for Giannis?

I get it, ragging on Brown over analytics and trading him away after winning a championship, and not getting was is perceived as a good return... it feels like a slap in the face to some. But man, if that's MY team, as a GM or an owner, I wouldn't be signing him to that extension. Let the Phoenix Suns of the league pay $70M for Devin Booker. We won one title with Tatum and Brown in 10 years, in their absolute primes, at the exact time we had the money to employ Jrue Holiday AND Porzingis AND White AND Al Horford. I don't think it's irrational to think that older versions of Tatum and Brown making too much money to ever have an excellent supporting cast, could be a very bad idea. And if analytics strongly support that notion in addition...

Multiple 1sts, but yes, that's easily a better deal.  I would have kept JB, and would have simply said "no" to an extension, but if Brad was going to rush into a trade he should have taken something less awful than 36 year old, injured and mentally ill Paul George.

We don't know what the draft compensation would have been, even after assuming we could corral CHA and PHO into working with us. If it was much better than the PHI pick component, then of course that matters, but it's completely theoretical.

I get the argument that we should have just stood pat, but you seem to have a real bone to pick with George. We're calling him mentally ill and injured, but basically fine with owing $40M to Grayson Allen? I don't know if there's a single player I'd like less on our team (except maybe Bridges?). Dirtiest player in the league, completely unlikeable, and also injured. Who cares if the money would be split more ways, nobody wants those guys except Charlotte trying to unload a highly paid felon.

O'Neal is a 4th team journeyman pushing 34 years old. 3-and-D that offers absolutely nothing else but shooting 3s offensively, and defensively is decent but far from a stopper.

Naz Reid is a backup center with a $100M contract who shoots 85% of his shots away from the basket, doesn't rebound, doesn't get to the line, isn't a great defender... a classic 3rd or 4th big who is now paid like a starter because he's averaged 13-14 points per night a couple of times.

Holding up that pile of garbage as our "could have been" just isn't landing for me. Paul George could be a disaster, yes, but he at least outplayed Jaylen Brown and is a legitimate starter when healthy. I would absolutely hate wasting roster space on well-paid Allen and O'Neal, and getting stuck with Naz Reid's shiny new contract through 2030.

[No Nickname]

I agree Roy. But as Brad said, the Jays were eating up 70% of our cap and that makes it hard to put competitive guys around them to make the team competitive.

The cap part is right, but the cap isn't a realistic spending budget for an NBA team.

The Jays took up almost exactly 50% of the $209 million first apron hard cap.  That leaves roughly $105 million to fill out the roster.  To me, that's not unreasonable.  To me, the 70% thing is just a talking point, particularly since Paul George accounts for almost as large of a percentage as JB did.for 2/3 of the relevant time frame.

People are looking at the George vs Jaylen contract all wrong. Yes, George makes almost as much as Jaylen. But you have to look at it as sort of like the Holiday/Simons trade. Its REALLY hard to get of large contracts, it's nearly impossible to do all at once, you have to do it in stages. With Holiay/Simons they were able to first get o two years then later lip Simons to get under the tax. With George they save a year off the contract, three years if you consider they probably had to extend Jaylen if they kept him, and now as soon as next offseason he's a movable expiring contract.

So yes, they don't save much money immediately but they have a potential to save a lot as soon as next summer, whereas if you keep Jaylen you're really committing to him long term. They valued the "optionality"+ picks over whatever the difference between Jaylen vs George is this year

Except there were other offers that included more reasonable contracts coming back.

Actually, do you know some of those offers? I'm curious to work out the financial implications of those and see if they would have been better for us than taking in Mr Druggo. Mannix said "a good team made a better offer" but he refused to name it. Apparently Jaylen didn't want to go there and the Cs wanted to respect where he wanted to go, while still making sure they were ok with the return.

One was Reid + Bridges + picks, with Bridges obviously being tradeable to PHX for Allen + O'Neale. + picks.   I'm pretty sure that that one would have gotten us a decent size trade exception as well.

The Charlotte-Phoenix deal was Bridges + 1st round pick and 2nd round pick for Allen, O?Neale, and a more distant 1st round pick.  Somehow on the board the picks sent with Bridges have been forgotten.  Charlotte sent out more in draft compensation than they received back in that deal.

I would rather have a 2033 first rounder from Phoenix than a 2029 first rounder from Charlotte.

And that is a choice that may or may not prove to be correct, but it does mean that Bridges was not worth a pick on his own, which is at least the implication some have given.  I am not sure if that was the argument you were making.

We have heard the offer was Bridges, Reid, and picks.  Was it multiple 1st round picks?  Was it the same picks they wound up trading to Phoenix?  Who knows.  It was presumably not four 1st rounders since the Celtics would have certainly accepted that.  I can come up with pick combinations that would have made me prefer Reid, Allen, and the husk of Royce Oneale to the trade that was made, and I can come up with combinations that make me prefer our current deal.  I am not happy with any of them, to be honest, and I am mostly just shocked that Brown could not get more.  Like, Brandon Miller plus four picks sounded reasonable to me, but apparently it was so far from the market as to scare some teams off.

Royce O'Neale is a husk now?  He played 78 minutes for a playoff team,, outscoring, out-shooting, out-rebounding and out-passing Hauser.

If you didn't like the deal, why are you defending it tooth and nail, like you have a personal stake in defending Brent Stevens' honor?

His defense was awful last year.  The Suns were 11 points worse per 100 when he played.  There was no one else in their rotation who was close to that number.  The next worse was Mark Williams at -4.  At one point he was leading the league in the percentage of drives defended that resulted in blow-bys.  I do not know if that continued.  Husk may have been a strong word, as he got on the court a ton, but I am sure Phoenix fans are happy to see him gone.  I remember him looking awful the game we played in Phoenix.

I have accepted the deal as being what it is.  I really do like the picks we got.  With the flattened lottery and that play-in teams have good odds to move up, I really like the chance that we get a top 10, maybe even top 5 pick in 2028, which looks like a really nice class.  (The Clippers look destined for the lottery, and Philly has not been a strong regular-season team since Embiid is so prone to missing so much time, so getting play-in lotto balls from them seem possible).  And I think that the 2031 pick has a good chance too.  The Sixers might be starting a rebuild right around then, or having a very old and expensive Embiid and Brown on the team, limiting other moves.  I wanted more of them, of course.  But I think they are better picks than we would have gotten from Charlotte or Minnesota or Denver or other teams that may have had some interest.

I do not know why you hate Paul George so much.  Is it his mental health issues?  I feel I have seen you be sympathetic to others working through that before, so it does not feel right.  You criticize playoff performance, but he outplayed Jaylen just a couple months ago.  It feels oddly personal, like someone you know knows him and says he is a total jerk even compared to other basketball players.  Disappointed that he is the player, I get that.  I do not completely agree, but I find it a rational argument. But attacking his mental health feels like a low blow, and unlike you.

I?m in the same place on the draft pick values relative to other potential offers we?ve seen rumored.

I?m also as curious as Celtics2021 as he lays out in paragraph three. Is there a reason for the vitriol being cast at George?  I?m truly befuddled so maybe I?ve missed something?

[Roy H.]

you seem to have a real bone to pick with George. We're calling him mentally ill and injured, but basically fine with owing $40M to Grayson Allen? I don't know if there's a single player I'd like less on our team (except maybe Bridges?). Dirtiest player in the league, completely unlikeable, and also injured.

I do have a bone to pick with Paul George.

1.  He's missed 40% of his games over 7 years;
2.  His team has missed the playoffs in three of those seasons, and he was injured for another playoff season;
3.  He's admittedly mentally ill, and despite having unlimited resources, chose to treat that mental illness with horse tranquilizers;
4.  He sucks in the playoffs when he does play;
5.  He's 36.

None of those things apply to Grayson Allen.  In fact, once Allen became a rotation player, he's never played less than 50 games.  That's a low bar, but it's also one that PG has missed four of the past seven seasons.  PG has only played 57 games *once* in seven years.

But attacking his mental health feels like a low blow, and unlike you.

I'm not "attacking" his mental health, I'm "attacking" his decision to treat it with illicit ketamine, despite having all of the resources in the world.

And, as I'm sure anybody that anybody knows people with mental health issues can tell you, this is a health issue.  Mental illness is often a chronic condition that can be properly medicated, but it's also something that is subject to additional "injury', just like a surgically repaired achilles tendon.

I find it wild that a handful of Brad apologists are regurgitating the company line, pretending that JB and PG carry the same level of risk going forward.  You yourself argued that you were "more" concerned about JB's achilles tendinitis than you were about George's history of missing 35-ish games per season.  Respectfully, that's a very bizarre opinion and one that deserves some pushback.

PG may play 70 games next season, but it's not a reasonable expectation.  He has a terrible contract relative to his availability and performance, which would normally carry significant negative value. 

The trade does not properly value 1) the negative nature of George's contract, while also 2) valuing JB as an All-NBA level player with a Finals MVP and ECF MVP in his trophy case.  If the 2031 pick is the cost of taking on the worst contract in the NBA, then the value we extracted for a great player was a pick swap and a couple of seconds (likely to be used on salary dumps or two-way players).